Scutatus
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Scutatus
-
-
@Mythos Ruler: Thank you for your honest and comprehensive reply. I appreciate that you wish to do the best possible job and don't want to rush it. Personally, I find that refreshing. It's almost unheard of these days. So often now games are rushed to meet an enforced unrealistic schedule. The result is that, even though games are often incomplete and/or bugged to hell they still hit the shops. Game companies just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever, we'll just patch the bugs post release, after everyone has bought our faulty product". As if that's perfectly ok.
We wouldn't buy a car or vacuam cleaner the same way, so why is it ok to sell faulty products in the games industry?
Thank you for actually trying to do a proper job before release. Years more huh? Fair enough. I'm not going anywhere.
And also, I feel I must apologise. I appear to have inadvertently hijacked the thread with my O AD comment. Doh!
-
I'm impressed Ramus. I can only dream of such a mastery of latin and marvel at your display of linguistic ability.
Thank you.
Oh, and welcome by the way. With your knowledge you will be a great asset here, I'm sure.
-
CE and BCE might be the politically correct thing to do but it's hardly commonly accepted. For all it's "rightness" many people recognise it for what it is - a meaningless farce. The dates remain the same and everyone knows what is really meant by CE, so why bother? AD is still alive and well, even amongst historians and historical authors.
It is not in any way at all any kind of slur against the different faiths and cultures in the world (it's not intended to be anyhow). It's just the accepted form of dating in the western world.
We still use irrelevant hang ons from past languages and religions, from Latin, Greek, French, Norse and German to name but a few. No English man takes offence that we still use latin so much - even if we don't realise it, it's more common than many might think. Nor do we worry that we've understandably "borrowed" so much from the French language. We don't fret about so many of our words originating from Ancient Greece or that so many of our towns have Norse sounding names. It's our history, our heritage.
For many our dating system is just one such hang on. Most people don't even stop to think what the AD really means. In fact in this day and age I wonder how many do actually know any more?
It's not personal, and if one does take it personally then maybe they are being just a tad too insecure? If other faiths want to use CE then that's fine, no problem. I understand "in the year of our Lord" might be a little antagonizing to other faiths. But for those that don't have a problem with it there is no need for an enforced white wash.
Traditional hang ons aside, try to remember that for some people (I.e Christians) it is the "year of our Lord". We don't go about demanding other faiths change their calendar to suit us - they are free to date however they wish - so why should we have to change ours for them? Christianity is a legitimate faith too you know. Why do people not worry about offending Christians?
Let it be both CE and AD.
-
For the record the Late western Roman Empire had "cataphracts" too (more acurately termed Contararii). Indeed, Sarmatian Contararii stationed in Britian could well be partly responsible for the origin of the Arthur myth. (yes that dreadful film did actually have a valid point - however badly it was presented) But yes, the east do seem to have been more interested in the whole mounted archer/contararii/true cataphract thing than perhaps the west was. This may have been because of the nature of the foes they faced: cavalry dominated Germans and steppe nomads coming down through the balkans and of course the Persians, renowned for their horse archers and cataphracts. Then there were the wide open vast ambiguous frontiers of Arabia and Northern Africa, where mobility was paramount. So understandably there was more interest in cavalry in the East but the west too recognised the importance of cavalry. Even in the west cavalry held higher prestige than infantry and were considered more important.
Regarding Byzantines, with a cut off of AD 500 you won't see much of what we now call the Byzantines, at least not properly. What you would see is a truly Eastern Roman Empire - not yet entirely dominated by Greeks - who are doing things slightly differently to the west. Unlike the west, the east had the funds to buy peoples off and maintain a fairly effective military. They used Foederati just as much as the west but kept them in smaller units, allowing greater control over them. The East was richer and more stable than the west so could stomach reverses easier. They were also under less pressure so were able to keep a tighter hold on it's army. They don't seem to have allowed control of the army to slip into "barbarian" hands so easily. And when things did become a little uncomfortable, they had the funds to be able to "encourage" peoples to "keep moving". Unfortunately this movement tended to be westward. (ahem).
Sadly the East were not perfect. It was they that were responsible for the mistreatment of the Goths, that encouraged them to ravage the balkans intially and then (after afore mentioned encouragement) travel west into destiny. In fact the East also paid the Huns to run off to the west as well. Oops.
-
Let's see, what peoples would I like to see from the period 500 BC to 1 BC that aren't already covered?
Hmm well Seleucids are essentially covered in the Hellenes.
Ancient Egypt didn't really exist by this period. But for a few brief windows of freedom it was mostly a vassal state for the Persian Empire. And then the Macedonians (which is kinda covered in the Hellenes). And then Rome (again it's been done).
Sooo....
Parthians. With the real proper cataphracts and horse archer units they were so famous for. A real thorn in Rome's side for centuries and the cause of one of Rome's most infamous defeats. (Crassus anyone?)
Or Scythians
Sauromatians/Sarmatians. More famous for events AD it is true, but they were active in Asia and Europe in the last centuries BC - first Sarmatian incursion against the Romans was over the lower Danube in 16 BC.
India?
China?
For Ad 1 to 500, well gee where to start...
Germans: Ideally I'd like seperate federations i.e Goths/Franks/Vandals/Saxons etc but probably they would have to be one generic "German" entry, just as the Hellenes have been done.
Sarmatians; (of course) gave us the precursor of the knight in the form of the armoured Contararii and were a horse archer people. They influenced Roman military policy and equipment considerably and were a real threat for centuries, especially when allied with other peoples such as Dacians and Marcomanni/Quadi. Oh, and Hollywood aside they really are a possible origin for the Arthur myth. Also, as a point of interest the Alans, a sarmatian people, settled in Brittainy and consequently handed down their name to us.
Dacians; A formidable Thracian people with a culture in an advanced state of "civilization." The Romans struggled against them, receiving several bloody noses from Dacian blows. The Dacian Falx ( a scythe type weapon) particularly worried the Romans. So much so that they actually adapted their armour in the field to cope with it, giving selected troops reinforced helmets, the greaves of the Centurions and the laminated limb armour of the cataphracts. (some say from the gladiators but cataphracts are more likely for field modifications). In the end they only managed to conquer the Dacians by massing utterly overwhelming numbers. But even after the famous Dacian wars the Dacians that remained free continued to be a thorn in Rome's side.
Sassanids; Essentially the continuation of the Parthian state but now again ruled by a native house, the Sassanid Persians were Rome's greatest foe in the east and easily their match. The two took turns to defeat the other in petty wars that usually accomplished little. Ocasionally a city or single province might change hands. Once in a while the Persian capital might be raided. Always the Sassanids bounced back and gave as good as they got.
Huns: Although the myth about the Huns is far from the reality they were still truly formidable at their best and would still be an interesting faction to play, being the only Turkish (mongoloid?) people in the game. And again, as perhaps the most famous horse archer people they would have very intrigueing troop types. They have the added advantage that if you wanted to be sneaky you could combine Huns and Germans into one faction (representing the empire of Attila).
China?
India?
Arabia? Islam hadn't quite arrived in AD 500, but it wasn't far off. It was near enough to perhaps use early Muslim units erm... but just not muslim. err. ok maybe not.
Early Imperial Rome: The classic of Hollywood. Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian all that. Even Marcus Aurelius (just barely). I don't know why I'm even mentioning Early Imperial, it's such a dead cert. It would be nice if you could break the mould and maybe try the lesser known - but more interesting - Middle Imperial Rome? No? Ok it was worth a try.
Late Rome. Still quite capable - up until the end of the 4th century anyway - it was still a might to reckon with, despite it's increasing dependence on Foederati and despite the fact it was "Roman" only in the political sense. Rome wasn't even the capital any longer. But spangenhelms and pteruges? Cataphracts and shieldwalls? What's not to like?
Eastern Rome (of course
) Constantinople. Byzantium. Sadly the cut off comes just before the likes of Justinian, Belisarius and Narses but AD 500 is close enough for us to still be able to use that army. Lots of dual armed bow/kontus cavalry, horse archers, armoured Contararii, the last legionaries evolving into scutati (albeit badly discplined poor quality scutati). Shieldwalls. Huns and Germans for allies. And archers, lots of archers. Perhaps with some factional ability that revolves around either their diplomatic duplicity (buying enemies off) or perhaps something that relates to all their theological development. All in all East Rome would certainly be my favourite choice. (gee you think?) East Rome would be a natural adversary for the Huns, Sassanids and Goths. -
Technically the game should be Called AD 0 (the AD comes first).
Although of course there was no AD 0, (it started at 1) because AD 0 would actually have been 1 BC.
I have a headache.
Progress seems to be going very slowly. This is understandable for a game being made in your free time without wages for the crew. (How on earth are you doing that anyway?). But like everyone else, after years of development (four? More?) I am wondering if the game is now due in months or still in years. The tantalising glimpses we are getting might suggest months. But then I don't know how many bugs you are chasing. If there are many and you are being thorough (which you seem to be) that could mean years.
Bummer.
-
It's all in the wrist.
-
The Romans were almost unique in the fact that for centuries they had their scabbards on the right hand side (ie on the sword hand side). Despite looking awkward it is actually the simplest thing to draw the sword from that position - easier in some ways than the "cross belly draw". Trust me, I do it regularly.
The Romans did this so that drawing the sword did not interfere with the large shields that they carried (which were held in the hand in a horizontal grip, without the benefit of straps). -
Brilliant art work by the way. Give that artist a prize!
-
Now now, They were people just like anyone else. They'd have had their uglies just like everyojne else too. They were human beings, not gods. Romanticised accounts of carthage are just that, romanticised. And yes, the Carthaginians DID have beards, possibly even "goatees".
Furthermore the Carthangians were NOT the same people that now live in North Africa. With the greatest respect Sarik I think you need to dissassociate just a little bit. The Carthaginians were NOT "Your people". There's been a big mix of different ethnicities in the area since then that has affected the population's general appearance and make up somewhat.
Furthermore the Carthaginians proper weren't even native to the area, but were of Phoenician/Canaanite stock. They did however rely heavily on the Numidian and Libyan natives.
-
Indeed, the missile should be a verutum, regardless of the Velite's quality.
(My word, the elite is armoured with oval shield and pilum? That's more akin to the Legionary Expedetii/Antesignani of Caesar's day than any Velite!)
-
This was an interesting article and a very good effort. Thank you. I do however have some points I'd like to pick up on.
Recent finds at Kalkreise suggest that segmentata armour and the straight edged rectangular scutum both began to be used far earlier than previously thought. The "Kalkriese" segmentata predates the Corbridge type (previously believed to be the first) and, together with the straight edged rectangular scutum, appears to have already been in service by AD 9, having seemingly been present at the battle of Teutoburg forest. This is of course is quite a revelation. Apparently, by Augustus's reign at the latest, straight sided rectangular scuta were already in use - although ovals and (for a time) curved sided rectangular scuta continued to be used alongside it. Interestingly the evidence suggests that segmentata and straight sided rectangular scutum were introduced together more or less at the same time and shared each other's fates thoroughout their history. Both fell out of favour in the late 2nd century. Both, together with the Italic helmet, were finally abandoned completely in the 3rd, (not the 4th). I find that intrigueing.
You state economic reasons for the segmentata's abandonment. Other reasons might have been practicality and the ethnic make up of the army. Segmentata appears to have been a swine to maintain on the field. Plates rusted on the inside where it was hard to get to due to lining, straps broke or perished, and fastenings could be all too easily broken or buckled, rendering wayward plates dangerous to their own user if it occured in battle. With this in mind it is not a wonder that segmentata was abandoned, but that it continued to be used by practical minded soldiers for as long as it did!
It is also worth remembering that the late 2nd century and much of the 3rd were times of strife for the Empire, as it lurched from one barely managed crisis to the next. First of all plague killed approx 20 million people, badly weakening the army. Perhaps sensing this weakness "barbarian" peoples began to press heavily against the frontiers, stretching the Roman army to it's limits. At one point Italy itself was ravaged and so desperate was the situation that the emperor sold his own private treasure to raise money, while slaves and gladiators were recruited into the army! The last time that had happened had been in the days of Hannibal. Matters did not get any easier. Pressure on the frontiers increased and they became far from secure; "barbarian" incursions penetrated into the provinces ever more frequently. To make matters worse there were also several ill advised civil wars that further weakened the already struggling empire. So bad had things got in the third century that the empire disintegrated into three different factions for a time; a "Gallic" empire in the west, Rome with the centre and the break away empire of Palmyra in the east. Indeed, for a while the Roman Empire looked like it might actually collapse altogether. With such intense pressure in mind it is no surprise that more and more "barbarians," be they Germanic or Iranian, were recruited into the army as a quick fix to manpower shortages. Under the circumstances it would also have been important to be able to produce, maintain and replace equipment simply and quickly. Simple oval shields and spangenhelms would probably have been far quicker and easier to make than covex rectangular scuta and elaborate italic helmets. Meanwhile scale and chainmail, while not necessarily easier to make, would have been easier to maintain in the field than segmentata. It is my suggestion that the increasingly Germanic make up of the Roman army in the 2nd and 3rd centuries also contributed to the downfall of the "classically Roman" equipment; the ever more numerous Germans and Iranians perhaps preferring to use the chainmail, oval shields and spangenhelms with which they were more familiar - especially at a time when basic training could sometimes (perhaps) have been some what rushed and/or simplified.
It's also worth noting that "Gladius" merely means sword. All swords were a gladius to the Romans. Hence "Gladiator" - "Swordsman". The various types of short sword that we collectively think of as the gladius are more likely to have been described as perhaps the "spanish type" or even just "short sword" by the Romans themselves. They certainly wouldn't have called them "Pompei" or "Mainz" as these are modern conventions named after the first location where archeologists found them. Also, the spatha began to be adopted by the infantry as early as the second century, rather than in the 4th - although it is entirely possible that some short swords contiued to be used until this date.
Regarding the helmets, you appear to have missed out the spangenhelm? This started to be introduced as early as the 2nd century and while Sarmatian/Germanic in origin it became very popular in the Roman Army in the 3rd century and continued in use alongside the ridge helmet. The spangenhelm would evolve into the prefered helmet of choice throughout europe, eventually becoming the famous conical helmets of Saxon, Viking and Norman renown. Although in principle similiar in construction, each being made of several parts, the ridge and spangenhelm types were NOT the same helmet.
Personally I doubt proper crests ceased to be used entirely. In the later empire they may have had a come back, perhaps being used for identity purposes, the crest being one of the few things to differentiate a Roman unit from the enemy in a time when most of the army were actually so called "barbarians" and both sides were equiped very much alike. The crest might also have been employed for morale or status purposes. It makes sense to me that the Roman army would have actually continued to use crests one way or another, in the same way that Pteruges never fell out of fashion. They were just too deeply ingrained as part of the "Roman" identity. Regardless of the true fate of the crest, horse hair plumes seem to have became popular and were employed until the end of the Empire.
For it's part the idea of the pilum was not completely discarded in the later empire. The spiculum and verutum were heavy and light javelins respectively, essentially fulfilling the role of the Pilum. They continued to be used alongside the Lancea. It is recorded that front ranks would use their lancea as thrusting weapons - with the option to throw - while rear ranks continued to use missile weapons such as verutum, spiculum and the plumbatae/mattiobarbuli throwing dart (which you don't mention at all
). Archers in the back ranks also became common so that late roman legionary and auxilia units became even more formidable with missiles than the earlier pila using legionaries. One cannot over emphasise these missiles, be they the original pila or the later veruta and plumbata. The Legionaries are renowned as "swordsman" but in fact it was the disorder caused by the devastating volleys of missiles that helped the legionary to be as effective as he was. Unleashing their volley of missiles the Legonaries would generally have immediately charged in without any pause. Even as the enemy were discarding useless shields, tripping over fallen comrades and redressing broken ranks the Romans would be amongst them. For an enemy already in disorder - perhaps already losing it's nerve - the shock of a sword charge as well would be all the more terrifying and powerful. In this manner Legionaries gained the advantage before they'd even struck a sword blow. No one of these weapons alone made legionaries so formidable. It was the combined might of missile and sword together employed by legionaries with discipline (when they had it) that enabled them to be as effective as they were and gave them their fearsome reputation. (which is why I get so annoyed when Hollywood almost invariably misses out the pila volley and just has them charge in with swords alone, or with pila still in hand. WRONG! ) When the Legionaries were on the defensive the missiles remained just as vital, causing disorder and confusion to enemy ranks as they attempted to advance and unnerving the horses of enemy cavalry as they approached solid lines of shield and lancea (which in itself they would not have liked) .All in all the classical form of the Roman legionary, that of Hollywood, did not actually last all that long. Indeed their swan song as the dominant form can be said to have been the Marcommani wars of Gladiator fame - circa AD 180 - and the civil war that followed in the 190's. By that time longer swords were already gaining favour, a preference for mail or scale armour and oval shields was returning, and the spangenhelm had made it's appearance. In the 3rd century segmentata, Italic helmets, short swords and even rectangular scuta would continue to be used to some degree, but their heyday was already behind them. Indeed the same could argueably be said for the Legionaries themselves.
-
Fascinating. Enthralling. I've never seen this subject laid out quite so comprehensively and accessibly in so little space. That's far better than anything I could have done. Very impressive.
I cannot praise you enough Shogun. (By which I mean jolly well done!)
As a sort of interesting Post Script, there are some further legacies for the armour and tactics of the Hoplite and Phalangite.
The Romans were very highly influenced by Hellenic/Macedonian culture, so much so that they never truly completely abandoned it.
For instance, they adopted the Greek-Macedonian armours in their early days and for a time even (probably) fought as hoplites unitl the Manipular system was properly developed.
Armour wise, of particular note is their fascination with pteruges. They were so impressed with the pteruges of the linen corselets that they adopted them on their own armour, fastening them to the their subarmalis undergarment. Pteruges became a very "Roman" concept, like so much else that they had adopted and made their own. In this fashion pteruges continued to be employed in "Roman" armour and would remain popular amongst their soldiers well into the 11th century and beyond! (By which time of course the Romans I speak of were the Greek "Eastern Romans").
Meanwhile the heritage of the Hoplite and Macedonian phalanx would be remembered elsewhere in the Roman Empire's armies. Against cavalry attacks Roman Legionaries rembered the phalanx and adopted close order tactics the Spartans would have recognised. These close order formations (likely) gave rise to the "shieldwalls" of Late Rome. These in turn were passed down to the German nations who went on to make the tactic famous. The "shieldwall"'s greatest moment of course came as late as 1066.
Meanwhile the Eastern Romans (aka Byzantines) developed the Scutati who adopted the ten to fourteen foot Kontos as their primary weapon and fought shield to shield in close order, bringing the hoplite/phalanx concept back full circle. These too continued to operate into the 11th century.
That's over fifteen hundred years of development and military history. Not a bad lineage really is it?
-
Very interesting account Shogun. Thank you.
I think Antiochus most likely just got carried away with the pursuit, thinking that the battle was his. Remember that from his vantage point with the victorious cavalry he would have had little knowledge of events elswhere on the field. Also, bare in mind that keeping control of units - especially cavalry units in hot pursuit - wasn't very easy in the days before radio! He may simply have "lost control" and been forced to go along for the ride.
But yup, it just all went horribly wrong for Antiochus that day didn't it? Shame.
(Can you tell who I was backing?
) -
It might not have done much good. It's entirely possible that Hannibal had long since "shot his bolt." He had not enjoyed real success in battle for many years and his glory days were far behind him. At Magnesia Hannibal would have been about 67 years old and it's noteworthy that he would live just another three years. Antiochus DID give him a command however. Hannibal was assigned command of the left wing of the Seleucid fleet and was engaged in battle with the Roman navy. He lost. Again.
In Antiochus III's defence he had spent most of his reign rebuilding the might of and unity of the Seleucid Empire (always the most fragile of the hellenic empires - though also the largest at it's greatest extent) and had won many victories to the east, west and south of his empire. He was entitled "The Great" for a reason. Magnesia, sadly, was simply one battle too many.
One must also not over criticise his decision to personally lead the cavalry on it's headlong charge. While to us it may seem foolish, back then it was simply the "done thing". Most Hellenistic Generals liked to emulate the Great Alexander and if charging in with the cavalry had been good enough for HIM...
-
Just a comment about the "dragon" standards. The draco wind socks were introduced MUCH later in Roman history, initally inspired by their Sarmatian auxiliaries, perhaps in the late 1st century AD, certainly by the end of the 2nd. "Dragon" standards did not exist in the Roman army during the time period this game is set in.
Furthermore it should be remembered that Roman cohorts did not exist until (if I recall correctly) the reforms of Marius (105 BC).
Prior to this the Republican Manipular army typical of the Punic wars deployed in maniples, strangely enough. Maniples were two centuries brigaded together (so about 160 men strong) and carried a standard which was literally a metal hand afixed to a staff - because the term Maniple meant "handful" if I recall correctly. This "handfull" might have came about because maniples were intorduced as far back as the 4th century BC and those first maniples possibly originally carried a bundle of straw upon a pole for their standard - literally a handfull of straws. Alternatively it could possibly refer to the brigading of two units - their gathering and "holding together" so to speak. But this is speculation.
What I do know almost for sure is that the usage of the terms "cohort" is inappropriate until the 1st century BC. The use of "dragon" standards is not appropriate at all.
-
Actually the dress is far too tight and um, "low neckline" to be a practical workers outfit. This is closer to gratuitous fantasy than plausible peasant.
-
While the evolution probably began during Caesar's career the true Rectangular Scutum didn't appear until Augustus. They started out as the time honoured ovals with top and bottom clipped off (probably during Caesar's reign) and then in Augustus's time the sides were straightened out to form the first true rectangular Scuta.
But yeah, unlike Hollywood - that gives the classic rectangular scutum to all Romans, be they in the 1st century BC or even fifth century AD (!) - the "Classic" Legionary with Lorica segmentata and famous covex rectangular scutum was actually around for only about 250 years, from just before the birth of Christ up to about the middle of the third century AD. But they were losing favour even by the end of the 2nd and never fully replaced mail and oval shield types.
Ironically the large oval Scutum was actually around far longer. This was the shield that with subtle changes and a gradual shrinkage was the main shield of the Republic for centuries. It's smaller cousin stayed around and was popular even during the heyday of the rectangular scutum - eventually replacing it altogether. Event the Legions continued to use the oval, alongside the rectangular. With modification the oval carried over into the successor Eastern Roman Empire - that we call Byzantium. This would not fall until AD 1453!
As you can see, in comparitve terms the famous classic rectangular scutum was around for just the blink of an eye while the oval scutum continued in one form or another for over a millenium. Yet it's the rectangular scutum that we all automaticaly think of when we think of "Romans". Funny eh?
-
Is that the faintest hint of a n...no surely not.
-
Indeed. That's very light armour for a "Cataphract" of the eastern mould.
-
If that's as... "unsubtle" as in-game women get I'll be releived. It makes a change for the gratuity and fantasy to be left at the door in favour of realism and practicality. It's almost unheard of. Don't dissapoint me by taking this ampleness any further.
-
Um guys try to remember that Jesus was a carpenter. He didn't have special fancy clothes but wore the same clothes as everyone else. The clothes of Jesus would have literally been the clothes of the "everyman".
So of course this guy looks like Jesus! It would actually be more acurate to say that Jesus looked like this guy!
-
Indeed. Remember Sarik, fashions change. Peoples change. The Carthaginians were round 2000 years ago. They were not the North Africans of today that you are familiar with. The Carthaginians had beards.
A note about the pikes. While it is the stereotypcial image of carthaginians it is now rather debatable if actually the Carthaginains did in reality use said pikes. It is more probable that they employed the long Hoplite spear.
-
Significantly older is good. He was in his 60's at Thermopylae!
Not that Hollywood would ever acknowledge that of course. But then the recent 300 was abysmally laughably inaccurate anyhow. Should have just called it 300 Conans and been done with it. (sigh)
how much is the game finnised?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Scutatus
Well that's not so far away in the great scheme of things. We're in early 2008 now after all. It's amazing where the time will go. (Wildfire Games staff suddenly have a collective heart attack as the realisation sets in)
Did I just put that "earliest" back to 2010?